October 2, 2011

... because I hope the conspiracy — if it exists — succeeds. Some time next year, I'll tell you what the theory was, as this is a conspiracy that will play out within a limited time frame. Don't try to drag it out of me. I am not in this conspiracy, but I don't want to blow the lid off of it. It's has to do with certain political actors seeming to be pursuing one goal, when actually they seek the opposite.

Could you write the post explaining what it is and set Blogger to auto-post it next year? I would be disappointed if you died and took this conspiracy theory with you. It would be like when Stephen King got hit by that van, and everyone was like, "Oh terrible! No we'll never know how his series ends!"

The process is:1) Israel is, in public, strongly against it.2) Therefore the "opposite of Israelis always the right position" people are strongly for it.3) They get it.4) Someone in Palestine fires a rocket into Israel.5) Israel declares it an act of war by a sovereign state and invades.

No no no.. she posted "political actors" We should be looking at people like Al Franken, Jeannine Garofolo, Alec Baldwin, and all the other Hollywood lightweights that make you cringe when they open their mouth to support your position.

I figger its got to do with Oliver Stone, the JFK assassination, and Krispy Kreme donuts.

On a side note, Nebraska, and Wisconsin are nice teams but 'Bama is just a monster on steroids. Whoever wins LSU/BAMA might as well be crowned champs.

Sarah Palin is going to come out in support of Chris Christie when he decides to run for President. Christie is holding off announcing a run because he wants to block Sarah from running. So, Sarah is teasing at running while Christie is building a coalition of supporters, mainstream Republican supporters, that do not want Sarah to run.

But Christie actually has the bona fides that Palin wants to back: reduce government, fight entrenched corruption, fix the debt. I don't even think she wants the Veep spot on his ticket...though she may want some position to build up her political credentials for a future run.

The Obama Administration wants the Supreme Court to strike down the mandate, thereby removing it as a political issue in the election while allowing them to rail at the heartless extremist conservative teabagging court majority denying needed medical care to poor babies.

Michelle Obama wins the Democrat Party nomination for President of the US just 30 minutes after her husband declined the nomination. Michele goes on to win the Presidency in a close contest becoming the first female US president.

I agree. I was about to posit the same response, when I read Irene's post.

The only way Obama can be reelected is for the Obamacare noose to be removed from around his neck. So when SCOTUS throws out the law, the theory goes that independents will return to his camp and he has cover from the ire of the radical left wing that is his base.

Actually, Israel has supported, and agreed to, the idea of Palestinian statehood for quite some time. They simply want the Palestinians to likewise support and agreed to the existence of the Jewish state of Israel, which the Palestinians resolutely refuse to do, preferring eternal war instead.

Write down as much detail as you like explaining the details of this conspiracy theory, with any elaboration you like.

Save the text somewhere safe.

Then, use an MD5 generator to generate a "fingerprint" for your theory, and post that fingerprint to the blog. Folks who are interested in checking back can write down the hash to ensure that it isn't changed later.

There are plenty of free MD5 generators online, like http://www.miraclesalad.com/webtools/md5.php

Then, later on, when you are ready to post the details, people can take that posted text and run it through an MD5 generator themselves, confirming that what you've posted later is a true copy of what you had originally put together, without revisions or edits of any kind.

The conspiracy: Obama throws the election to Romney, who then appoints Obama to the Supreme Court. And Obama has a bust of Saul Alinsky installed in the Supreme Court building, as a mockery to all who opposed him.

"The Occupy Wallstreet protesters appear to be radically anti-Wall Street, but in reality they are acting to make Obama look more centrist."

Nope. Obama already is centrist, and doesn't need help in appearing so. Now that he's campaigning, he'll feign a "progressive" stance that he has absolutely done nothing to promote in office, and some may fall for it, but many will have seen from his time in office that it's a sham.

Let me try: Hillary tried to get Health Care passed while Bill was President. She knew that if she was elected, she wouldn't try again. Since control of our Health Care has been a big goal of the Democratic Party, she just stepped aside without complaining about the voter fraud, and allowed Obama the nomination. Obama got it passed, and he will step down sometime early next year to allow Hillary to run. Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea have been seen a lot together lately. Call it timing (celebrating his Twentieth Anniversary for announcing his Presidency?) Can't remember Presidents doing that in the past. Bill really does love the limelight.

It would be fun if they're trying to "throw" (a la Black Sox) the Obamacare litigation in the Supreme Court, as many have suggested and as Ann (notwithstanding her "don't try to drag it out of me") has potentially supported in the comments.

I'm an appellate lawyer, and of course I've never tried to lose an appeal (like I would tell YOU!), but it's fun to think how one would go about it. I'm thinking I might begin by calling my adversaries "stupidheads."

David said..."The Obama Administration wants the Supreme Court to strike down the mandate, thereby removing it as a political issue in the election while allowing them to rail at the heartless extremist conservative teabagging court majority denying needed medical care to poor babies."

Doubtless that's what the administration wants, in spite of their belief that it's constitutional and because they believe that the law is popular. The problem is that they're all smart guys—one might even flatter them and say wise—and they must realize that the SCOTUS appeal is a crapshoot. It could end up being a nine to nothing standing decision. It could be a five to four standing decision that upends partisan expectations: The conservative justices and Tony refusing to entertain striking down the law. Or they could take it on the merits and its fate could be 5-4, 6-3, 3-2-4, you name it, in either direction. Four votes to uphold are certain, but it's actually quite difficult to call how this one comes out when you look at how the conservative Justices and Justice Kennedy have voted in federalism cases over the years. To name but two: What do you do with the Chief's vote in Comstock? With Scalia's and Kennedy's in Raich? The fact is that the court's two most reliable votes for federalism—Rehnquist and O'Connor—are gone, and it's hard to see anything in the backgrounds of the Chief and Justice Alito (lifelong feds both) that could make them as instinctively federalist as their predecessors.

Mattman26 said..."I'm an appellate lawyer, and of course I've never tried to lose an appeal (like I would tell YOU!), but it's fun to think how one would go about it."

You could make an argument that goes so incredibly far in what it says or what it implies that it alarms everyone, even those on your side of the case. Take the government's brief in the Hosanna-Tabor Church case this term, or the SG's argument first time around in Citizens United. Of course, the risk with that strategy is that some justices are just fine with the house that jack built—if the strategy of proposing an argument with truly ridiculous consequences was infallible, the government would have lost United States v. Lopez and Morrison nine to nothing.

Donald Trump will join up with the "No Labels" people claiming they want to have a third party candidate become president. In reality they want Obama re-elected and they hope their party can draw of enough independants and Republicans to do so.

Some time next year, I'll tell you what the theory was, as this is a conspiracy that will play out within a limited time frame. Don't try to drag it out of me.

Althouse has already told us, via choice of subject for some of her previous posts:

Bill and Hillary Clinton's supposed praise for Barack Obama's policies is actually intended to undermine him, in preparation for a Democratic primary challenge by Hillary.

If Althouse if correct, then at some time between now and the first primaries Hillary will break with the Obama administration. The issue might be Operation Fast and Furious, or Iran's nukes, or the Israel/Palestine mess, or the failed non-war in Libya, or relations with China, or the economy, or ... well, any number of possibilities.

Cain will win the Republican nomination with Palin's endorsement. Palin will campaign in selected Congressional and statehouse races to further embed the Tea Party inside the Republicans. Romney will take the VP spot if asked and many experienced Republican governors will take cabinet positions.

My own pet theory is that people like Pelosi, Bush, Hastert were smarter than people gave them credit for.

In the early 2000's they recognized that deficits and free trade with China would cause the economic collapse of America. But they and their donors in the Owner Class were profiting too much to sound any alarm bells. To protect rich people like themselves, they ginned up the "mortal threat" we faced from 3,000 Muslim terrorists to create "The Heroes of Homeland Security". An 80 billion a year Empire.

The goal, of course, was to put a massive, new internal security apparatus in place, in open view. in plain sight of all - so that the seething masses would not be able to accomplish 10-20 years from now -- what the French Peasants, American bourgeoisie, or Russian workers accomplished in the past.

It is now in the hands of the Solicitor General's office, not the White House, and I would think you'd have a hard time having the lawyers agreeing to conspire to present a fraudulent case to the Supreme Court.

re: Hillary

If is it that the Clintons are sabotaging Obama to get Hillary in there while appearing to support him, and that is what she hopes succeeds, then this Althouse chick really hasn't learned a damn thing even after having been "mugged by reality," and is an incorrigible lefty down to the core.

But I believe it to be a pretty open secret, based on the past conduct of Dems, libs, progressives, and lefties, that they will often give the appearance of supporting one of their own, when deep down they are thoroughly disgusted with him and having little but contempt for him and are actually working to effectively stab him in the back so as to protect their ideology.

In this case, that would mean libs, who are impervious to reason and logic, while working to reelect Obama, would really like to see him lose so that they can blame his failures on Obama himself, rather than blaming it on the fallacies of their own beliefs.

They have used that excuse before on Carter and Mondale and Dukakis and Gore and Kerry, who served in Vietnam, and even Bill Clinton.

If libs concede that it is their ideology that is the problem, rather than Obama the man (or Stalin the man or Mao the man, etc.), then they must conclude that it is they who are the problem too. They must realize that it really is true, "we have met the enemy, and it is us."

When you are so filled with hate and bile as are libs, then you become hate, and you inevitably end up eating your own even while purporting to support them.

1. Hillary Clinton will resign, change parties, and run for and win the Republican nomination. After her historic election, she will name Obama to the Supreme Court, which is what he really wanted all along.

2. Obama will reveal that he was created at Area 51 out of spare genetic parts, thus explaining his lack of a past.

And by "libs," of course I include the mainstream media. They will give the appearance of continued subservience to The One, but every now and then, they might slip in a poison pill. And then they might even do a last minute "a-ha" October surprise, media sharks smell blood in the water, story that they've been sitting on for months, if not years.

Maybe it's related, but I don't envy whoever wins this next election. If the winners want to succeed in saving this country, they are gonna have to be willing to be hated for a long time, before being recognized as the heroes they will be. We need some truly great and selfless people right now with a love, respect and understanding of freedom.

Like many of us did when we finally grew up, someday this nation will appreciate the adults that did the right thing even if it's not appreciated at the time.

Thanks Mom and Dad. I'm truly sorry for my stupidity and selfishness, and thankful for your wisdom and strength. Neither of us deserved what we got, but you made the sacrifices, and I got the benefit.

David has it right. Obama wants Obamacare ruled unconstitutional, so it shake the political albatross and rev up his base with fight langauge. But, I think the result Ann wants is the unconstitutional ruling, not Obama using it effectively int eh election.

2/11 1:44 PM

David said...The Obama Administration wants the Supreme Court to strike down the mandate, thereby removing it as a political issue in the election while allowing them to rail at the heartless extremist conservative teabagging court majority denying needed medical care to poor babies.

Professor, I told you to becareful with the information I provided from the future. People won't understand and you risk the paradox. I fear now, as you tempt fate, the future may already be changing. My left hand is disappearing.

"It's has to do with certain political actors seeming to be pursuing one goal, when actually they seek the opposite."

I know! I know! It's Fast and Furious. Certain political actors selling guns to Mexican drug lords, actually seek gun control in the US. In case the One lost his re-run, his pitch-forked goons do not want to confront real guns.

It came to me about the time that the Illuminati slipped the brain worm into my left nostril-- Alger Hiss will be endorsing Harold Stassen, not because he wants him to win, but in order to throw the race to Ralph Nader!

"These days, you can easily create a completely different message with the same MD5 checksum as the original."

It wouldn't really be that easy to retype an intelligible conspiracy theory and then find a way to get another one to generate the same hash.

It would be possible, but would probably take months of work or very odd diction. Probably both.

I'll take Althouse at her word as to whether what happens was her prediction, but I thought I'd note my opinion on the MD5 fakery.

Actually I am not sure why someone wouldn't just muse about their theory if they are a blogger and it's an interesting theory

My stab in the dark is Bill's efforts to shore up Obama are actually conceited enough that they aren't helping Obama, but are keeping the Clintons in the spotlight and may help Hillary if she were to replace Obama as the candidate. I don't think Bill really wants that to happen.

Or perhaps it's something else. The GOP debates have been very strange, and I've mused if A or B are really under some kind of alliance with Romney. Cain (whom I like a lot) announced case closed to terminate a very powerful point against Romney at the CNN debate, and later he rejected Romney's main competitor (who is ideologically more like Cain).

But I think alliances explain this less than just sophisticated tactics to compete for similar vote blocs.

Stuff is put in video to prove it was shot a later date. I laughed because I could not figure out what could be put in to prove it was shot on an earlier date. I give up.

As to the consiprary, I think it is either: (1) Clinton and other dems conspiring to get Obama to step down; or (2) Obama wanting Obamacare ruled unconstitutional so he can get out from under it politically for the election (internal polls showing it is a killer in 2012 as it was in 2010_

"It wouldn't really be that easy to retype an intelligible conspiracy theory and then find a way to get another one to generate the same hash."

Well nigh impossible I think. I believe take an arbitrary source file, and append extra stuff to the end to generate an arbitrary MD5 checksum, BUT the extra stuff would look no different than a random string of bytes. Jonah can correct me on this.

Great jinx, Carniflex. The SEC is so tough because we eat our own. If it's not SC (newcomer) or LSU, it's Auburn or Florida. It's just really really difficult to win. So 'bama's c'ship two years ago must be seen as truly epic. To win the SEC is to win the national championship. But it's gotten to be just too much, now. And they're adding the aggies. Why?

At some point it becomes ridiculous.

I love the Tide, grew up with them, and the Bear. This gets into your blood. But it's almost gotten out of hand.

I second (nth? lost count...) the hashing proposal. However, I say use SHA-2 instead; no collision attacks have been found for it yet, and I doubt any will be found in the timeframe that matters for this stuff.Here's a javascript-based demo:http://jssha.sourceforge.net/As long as you've got javascript enabled, the computation will be done locally, and nothing should be transmitted to sourceforge. Use the first box, and set the SHA variant to SHA-512.Make sure to save the input message somewhere secure - this is what you will need when you are ready to reveal the secret.Hash the message, and post the hash output along with the algorithm you used.When you're ready to reveal, post the input message exactly as it was saved. Then, we can all verify that you had this information when you said you did by hashing the posted message using the same algorithm as you, and checking that the hash you posted is the hash we obtained from your message.

The conspiracy's goal is something that Althouse would like to see succeed. So I don't think, at this point, that the conspiracy would be the re-election of Obama.

And it's probably something local or state-level; I doubt that Althouse thinks her blog is so prominent, or her insight so earth-shattering, that mere mention of this conspiracy here could stop something on the national level.

Maybe it has something to do with the Archer raid. Maybe it's a birther-esque feint by the Walker camp to misdirect their opponents toward something insubstantial.

Nah, that's not it. One of you 'sconsin people should come up with something better, I'm not familiar enough with your whacky political issues.

Professor Althouse should write up the theory, encrypt it, place the key in some law firm's hands with instructions to release it to the public on a certain date, and then publicly post here the first paragraph of the encrypted post, so that it will be impossible to change the details of the theory as time progresses.

Anything on the TV or computer could be easily recorded for a later retraction.

I'm surprised at you people! The newspaper gag only works when you come from the future! Or, immediate present, I guess.

An outdoor shoot could work, particularly if it included an event that was beyond the reasonable capacity of Althouse to stage. Like a Badgers game. The problem with using the protests is that they're all pretty much indistinguishable one to the next, and they might still be protesting next year.

Do something like go down to the Hall-Mitchell Theater for "Stew and Friends" and film in the lobby. Or the World Dairy Expo this week.

I would suggest something along blake's idea. Record a video in a public street backdrop. Cut the sound when you speak of the specifics and blur the mouth and upload the altered version in the next day or so. Then later upload the actual video. You could not replicate the non-cut parts of speech or the actions of strangers going about their daily lives to such a exact extent could you? And your post date of the altered video would vouch for the date of creation.

Will it be possible to verify that the conspiracy existed even if the outcome is the one Althouse is predicting?

For the sake of argument, from an earlier thread, if the conspiracy is Obama working behind the scenes to derail the current healthcare law that he signed, and the law is overturned, it would not establish that there was a conspiracy. If the existence of the conspiracy would be concretely demonstrated by the outcome, then that must narrow down the possibilities.

Ok, just to make things clear:I was only comparing the professor's action to truthers on a superficial level of presentation. I'm not saying that the 9/11 field of conspiracy theory has anything to do with the Professor's theory. Only that in her playful title, she ended up echoing how truthers themselves act. As well as Freemen on The Landers, Tax Law CTists (yes, such exist), etc. etc....

And yes, I know Meade's post was also a tongue-in-cheek satire of conspiracy theorists. Man, I gotta quit going to paranoid forums for the lulz; it's starting to drive me batty! :-S